MoonlitKnight
Educated
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2014
- Messages
- 60
Hypnoticoverall TW2>TW1>>>>>>the holocaust>TW3
Hypnoticoverall TW2>TW1>>>>>>the holocaust>TW3
probably because it had a worthwhile villain.
Guess I'm in the minority. 3 has better gameplay and exploration but I enjoyed 2's story a lot more, probably because it had a worthwhile villain. Chubby pasty guy or THE ICE AGE didn't convince me to abandon berry picking nor elicit any interest from me to learn who they are.
I see people are slowly realising that TW2 has the best story in the series and TW3 is pretty derp . May be a few years later we will agree that TW1 is the best of them .
There's a considerable overlap between the Assassin's Creed fanbase and The Witcher 3 fanbase. This isn't by chance. There's also a disturbing amount of Codexers who own console controllers. If we drew a Venn diagram of these three sets, then the Codexers who voted for The Witcher 3 in this poll would be in the intersection of all three sets.
With The Witcher 3 it felt like they were trying to make The Witcher 2.5, i.e. a reasonably focused story-driven game with branching narrative. All the basic elements of The Witcher 2 are present in The Witcher 3, but for sales purposes they slapped the whole thing down into a giant Ubisoft-style open world theme park complete with animatronic robots posing as NPCs and vast amounts of shallow, repetitive content. And shallowness aside, the gating of XP through the main quest made exploration redundant anyway. For me, Blood and Wine was a better experience over the base game as the level of meaningful content per virtual square mile was higher.There's a considerable overlap between the Assassin's Creed fanbase and The Witcher 3 fanbase. This isn't by chance. There's also a disturbing amount of Codexers who own console controllers. If we drew a Venn diagram of these three sets, then the Codexers who voted for The Witcher 3 in this poll would be in the intersection of all three sets.
Agreed, but I'm more of a console player than a PC one, simply because I can't be doing with all the faff trying to get some games to run. And it definitely doesn't take a rocket scientist to see all the AAA Assasin Creed like tropes which seeped into TW3.
Personally it felt as if I spent 2/3rds of my time running over barren wasteland, and around none-entity "npcs" who you couldn't interact with. There appeared to be a large amount of "nothingness" (pointless loot, none-interactive NPCs, repetitive merchants, samey quests) which seemed to fill the game.
With The Witcher 3 it felt like they were trying to make The Witcher 2.5, i.e. a reasonably focused story-driven game with branching narrative. All the basic elements of The Witcher 2 are present in The Witcher 3, but for sales purposes they slapped the whole thing down into a giant Ubisoft-style open world theme park complete with animatronic robots posing as NPCs and vast amounts of shallow, repetitive content. And shallowness aside, the gating of XP through the main quest made exploration redundant anyway. For me, Blood and Wine was a better experience over the base game as the level of meaningful content per virtual square mile was higher.
I'd say it's not particularly similar to The Witcher 2. If TW2 could be compared to a multi-part novel series, than Blood & Wine is a short story. It's like a very long side quest with an open world attached to it rather than the linear world but far more complex story of TW2. Blood & Wine is basically a condensed, more cheerful version of The Witcher 3 with less time-wasting filler and a relatively low-key story. Of all The Witcher games, Blood & Wine is closest in tone and content to the original Sapkowski short stories I've read.How'd you compare Blood & Wine to TW2?
Of all The Witcher games, Blood & Wine is closest in tone and content to the original Sapkowski short stories I've read.
I'd say it's not particularly similar to The Witcher 2. If TW2 could be compared to a multi-part novel series, than Blood & Wine is a short story. It's like a very long side quest with an open world attached to it rather than the linear world but far more complex story of TW2. Blood & Wine is basically a condensed, more cheerful version of The Witcher 3 with less time-wasting filler and a relatively low-key story. Of all The Witcher games, Blood & Wine is closest in tone and content to the original Sapkowski short stories I've read.How'd you compare Blood & Wine to TW2?
The best parts of the Witcher 1 are better than the Witcher 2, for me. But it also has far more stretches of boring overlong content, so overal I enjoy the second one more even though I prefer the first in certain ways. The witcher 3 is filled with way too much crap and you can't say fuck humans and go chill with the dwarves and elves so fuck that one.
Guess I'm in the minority. 3 has better gameplay and exploration but I enjoyed 2's story a lot more, probably because it had a worthwhile villain. Chubby pasty guy or THE ICE AGE didn't convince me to abandon berry picking nor elicit any interest from me to learn who they are.